New technology is the story of our times. It is heralded as the life-saver. It's the hero we've all been looking for. But, as much as I would like a good hero to step in and save us all, it isn't going to. GMO's have been largely untested and yet, they are beginning to show their weakness.

1973Herbert Boyer and Stanley Cohen combine their research to create the first successful recombinant DNA organism. Almost 40 years since the first modern GMO

1982The U.S. Food and Drug Administration approves the first genetically engineered drug, Genentech's Humulin, a form of human insulin produced by bacteria. This is the first consumer product developed through modern bioengineering. 30 years since the first GMO product was approved.

1986The first field tests of genetically engineered plants (tobacco) are conducted in Belgium. 26 years since the first GMO plant was tested

1987The first field tests of genetically engineered crops (tobacco and tomato) are conducted in the United States. 25 years since the first GMO crops were tested.

1992Calgene's Favr Savr tomato, engineered to remain firm for a longer period of time, is approved for commercial production by the US Department of Agriculture. 20 years since the first GMO food crop was approved.

It seems the "largely untested" claim is lacking as there are ~40 years of data on GMOs down to 20 years of data on human consumption of GMOs where are the "weaknesses" in this data exactly? No assumptions, wishes, or hopes, but clear scientific research showing the weakness.

And now they are commercially available and sold without anyone having to know because they are not labelled. They are now grown and sold to farmers as a package deal. What's the package?

How does that make them "largely untested" or even remotely relate to the testing? It is a diversion from a mistake on your part to a subjective innuendo.

What are the weaknesses shown by the clear research?

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein

New technology is the story of our times. It is heralded as the life-saver. It's the hero we've all been looking for. But, as much as I would like a good hero to step in and save us all, it isn't going to. GMO's have been largely untested and yet, they are beginning to show their weakness.

1973Herbert Boyer and Stanley Cohen combine their research to create the first successful recombinant DNA organism. Almost 40 years since the first modern GMO

1982The U.S. Food and Drug Administration approves the first genetically engineered drug, Genentech's Humulin, a form of human insulin produced by bacteria. This is the first consumer product developed through modern bioengineering. 30 years since the first GMO product was approved.

1986The first field tests of genetically engineered plants (tobacco) are conducted in Belgium. 26 years since the first GMO plant was tested

1987The first field tests of genetically engineered crops (tobacco and tomato) are conducted in the United States. 25 years since the first GMO crops were tested.

1992Calgene's Favr Savr tomato, engineered to remain firm for a longer period of time, is approved for commercial production by the US Department of Agriculture. 20 years since the first GMO food crop was approved.

It seems the "largely untested" claim is lacking as there are ~40 years of data on GMOs down to 20 years of data on human consumption of GMOs where are the "weaknesses" in this data exactly? No assumptions, wishes, or hopes, but clear scientific research showing the weakness.[/quote]

And now they are commercially available and sold without anyone having to know because they are not labelled. They are now grown and sold to farmers as a package deal. What's the package?[/quote]

How does that make them "largely untested" or even remotely relate to the testing? It is a diversion from a mistake on your part to a subjective innuendo.

What are the weaknesses shown by the clear research?[/quote]

Your link shows this "clear research" which began with Mendel in 1900 and ended with Favr Savr in 1992? Mendel's work isn't even related to current random gene insertions or the Roundup type technology which accompanies it.

As for Favr Savr Tomato:

GM tomatoes: The first and only safety evaluation of a GM crop, the FLAVR SAVRTM tomato, was commissioned by Calgene, as required by the FDA. This GM tomato was produced by inserting kanr genes into a tomato by an ‘antisense’ GM method. The test has not been peer-reviewed or published but is on the internet.

Some rats died within a few weeks after eating GM tomatoes. •The unacceptably wide range of rat starting weights (±18% to ±23%) invalidated these findings. •No histology on the intestines was done even though stomach sections showed mild/moderate erosive/necrotic lesions in up to seven out of twenty female rats but none in the controls. However, these were considered to be of no importance, although in humans they could lead to life-endangering hemorrhage, particularly in the elderly who use aspirin to prevent thrombosis. •Seven out of forty rats on GM tomatoes died within two weeks for unstated reasons. •These studies were poorly designed and therefore the conclusion that FLAVR SAVRTM tomatoes were safe does not rest on good science, questioning the validity of the FDA’s decision that no toxicological testing of other GM foods will in future be required.

Not really a topic-drift as we are still talking about whether or not organics are healthier .... for the individual, for the environment, for societies, etc, .... and this naturally would evolve to include a discussion of GMO's as Vandana Shiva has shown the catastrophe they've created for Indian farmers (as just one example).

Quote:

So powerful of a catastrophe, it caused suicides 5 years before any were ever approved, much less planted or even became popular with the farmers, which took a couple of more years. Why the Indian farmers choose to change crops that they had to see was literally killing their peers would seem to be a mystery since there are supposedly no advantages to GMO crops. It must be a governmental and corporate conspiracy to kill off farmers since Farm Aid saved all of their farms.

Vendan Shiva has clearly explained the reasons for the Indian suicides. In her very clear explanations, she has included trade liberalization, dumping, corporate globalization, World Bank structural adjustment policies and GMO seeds. The suicides began in 1997 and took off in 2002 with the introduction of GMO cotton.

But even more than the Indian suicides beginning in 2002 as a result of GMO's, there has also been a spate of recent (2011-2012) suicides as a result of GMO's in India.

"Cotton farmers are in a deep crisis since shifting to Bt cotton. The spate of farmer suicides in 2011-12 has been particularly severe among Bt cotton farmers,” says the advisory. Bt cotton’s success, it appears, lasted merely five years. Since then, yields have been falling and pest attacks going up. India’s only GM crop has been genetically altered to destroy cotton-eating pests.

For farmers, rising costs —in the form of pesticides — have not matched returns, pushing many to the brink, financially and otherwise. Simply put, Bt cotton is no more as profitable as it used to be.

“In fact cost of cotton cultivation has jumped…due to rising costs of pesticides. Total Bt cotton production in the last five years has reduced,” says the advisory ...."

Not to mention, assumptions, suspicions, misrepresentations, and even lies seem to be key aspects of the opposition to new technology.

There are no assumptions here. Nothing has been misrepresented.

Quote:

http://www.countercurrents.org/glo-shiva050404.htm

1997 witnessed the first emergence of farm suicides in India. A rapid increase in indebtedness, was at the root of farmers taking their lives. Debt is a reflection of a negative economy, a loosing economy. Two factors have transformed the positive economy of agriculture into a negative economy for peasants - the rising costs of production and the falling prices of farm commodities. Both these factors are rooted in the policies of trade liberalization and corporate globalisation.

In 1998, the World Bank's structural adjustment policies forced India to open up its seed sector to global corporations like Cargill, Monsanto, and Syngenta. The global corporations changed the input economy overnight. Farm saved seeds were replaced by corporate seeds which needed fertilizers and pesticides and could not be saved.

As seed saving is prevented by patents as well as by the engineering of seeds with non-renewable traits, seed has to be bought for every planting season by poor peasants. A free resource available on farms became a commodity which farmers were forced to buy every year. This increases poverty and leads to indebtedness.

Quote:

The patent protected seeds were not approved for use until 2002 and were not immediately planted even then.

Quote:

As debts increase and become unpayable, farmers are compelled to sell kidneys or even commit suicide. More than 25,000 peasants in India have taken their lives since 1997 when the practice of seed saving was transformed under globalisation pressures and multinational seed corporations started to take control of the seed supply.

Quote:

Which is clearly untrue since the reference itself states the court ruling was not until 1998.

What is clearly untrue? That debt has increased and become unpayable? That farmers have been compelled to sell their organs and commit suicide? That multinationals have taken control of the seed supply? The court ruling was in '98? Or was it '97? Or was it '98? Or was it '97? The year of the court ruling changes what exactly? The suicides? The selling of body parts? The coporate take-over?

Quote:

The District of Warangal in Andhra Pradesh used to grow diverse legumes, millets, and oilseeds. Seed monopolies created crop monocultures of cotton, leading to disappearance of millions of products of nature's evolution and farmer's breeding.

It seems the farmers made the choice maybe based on the increased profit from cotton.

The farmers made the choice based on the PROMISE of an improved standard of living which was not to be. And in doing so, compromised diversification.

Quote:

When Monsanto first introduced Bt Cotton in India in 2002, the farmers lost Rs. 1 billion due to crop failure.

But not due to the Bt cotton though. The weather was not good, but the 100,000 acres of Bt cotton palnted showed an overall increase in yield of 60% over the non-Bt cotton crop.

Only for the first 5 years. After that, the yield decreased.

Quote:

In the state of Bihar, when farm saved corn seed was displaced by Monsanto's hybrid corn, the entire crop failed creating Rs. 4 billion losses and increased poverty for already desperately poor farmers. Poor peasants of the South cannot survive seed monopolies.

Quote:

Assuming that somehow the non-hybrid corn would not have failed?

Assumption is not required when these farmers could have used their already saved seeds which they have been doing for thousands of years anyway at very little cost and which would not have required the cost of the "package deal" that Monsanto offers. Even if non hybrid had failed, it would never have been such a loss because the investment would have been much less anyway.

And the crisis of suicides shows how the survival of small farmers is incompatible with the seed monopolies of global corporations.

Quote:

Actually it shows the need for a crop insurance program and a means to attain more reasonable loans.

Historically there has not been a need for loans .... until the corporations stepped in .... not for seed or pesticides and herbicides.

Quote:

The government is desperate to delink farm suicides from economic processes linked to globalisation such as rise in indebtedness and increased frequency of crop failure due to higher ecologic vulnerability arising from climate change and drought and higher economic risks due to introduction of untested, unadopted seeds.

Quote:

It seems some are more desparate to try to link the problems with globalization.

Globalization is a major problem the world over. The problems are a result of corporate driven profit motivations and the need to report to share-holders. Nobody is "trying" to link the problems to globalization ..... the problems are clear in suicide statistics and reduced crops. Monsanto is not trying to feed the world. They are doing their best to make profit as is the goal of most corporations based on the business model.

What can you evidence? The evidence is that pesticide-laden food is affecting our health and the health of our environment. The two are intertwined. You seem to have your propaganda camps mixed up .... This was perhaps more evident in our discussion a few months ago around Vendana Shiva and the Indian suicides due to corporate interests, mostly GMO's and Monsanto, stepping into Inidan agriculture, but continues on in this thread. I get a little tired with your arguments at times, as they seem "nitpicky" and argue around trivialities while not actually getting to the essence. It's too slow ....

Quote:

So why let nitpicky things like facts and the truth get in the way of a good misrepresentation? I dislike misrepresentations and lower the credibility of those who stoop to their use. Vendana Shive stooped to the use and you still stoop in the attempt to have us ingore that fact because you emotionally believe in the outcome.

What misrepresentation? Vendana Shiva has not "stooped" to any misrepresentation, nor have I. No facts are ignored here, just evidenced. There has been a catastrophe in India due to corporate takeover.

Quote:

Facts do tend to get in the way of a good propaganda campaign sometimes.No, I have seen the data and the propaganda camp is clear ... especially since you still try to disbelieve after being shown the data does not support the claims made. How does a product cause more sucides before it is used? What other causes could there be? Important ones which are also documented?

They have been documented and GMO seeds are a culprit as documented.Whose propaganda campaign is it? Vendana Shiva's?

Quote:

That is one, but you present another given your continued support for that one.

You mean I am personally waging a propaganda campaign? Is it my campaign? Is it Vendana Shivas? Are the two of us conspiring to make sure the world doesn't eat?

Monsanto, Dow, Syngenta ..... they have nothing to do with propaganda. They are just innocent corporations working hard in their labs to feed their families. Right? Trying to offer their kids an education, hold onto their land, prevent their family members from ending their lives or selling their organs?

Quote:

When the facts are ignored or misrepresented I have to wonder why.

Me too.

Quote:

Not much it seems given the recent rehashing of proven misrepresentation as if it had never been brought to your attention

.

It has been brought to my attention but has no teeth and very little credibilty.

Quote:

If the argument cannot stand on its own supported by factual evidence I have to really question the validity of the argument and the qualifications and motives of those presenting it.

What to do when the argument can stand and is not misrepresented? What could the motives possibly be?

If you are looking for factual evidence, you'll not find it in profit driven intentions of multinational corporations. Vendana Shiva is not a multinational corporation. Monsanto is. Cargill is. Dow is. Syngenta is. Vendana Shiva is not.

Quote:

Vendana Shiva was clearly shown to have misrepresented the facts. The insinuation of misrepresentation due to profit is a clear assumption.

Not at all. Profit IS a driving force. What? ... do you think these corporations are not driven by profit when the entire economic architecture is? Can they even help it? Vendana Shiva gave up a career in physics to represent her people and the injustices done to them ..... some people are not invested in corporate driven profit but they are a minority as yet. She did not misrepresent any facts. She is now the organizing power of an organic farm which saves seeds and helps to preserve diversity. She could have made a lot more profit from joining one of these corporations.

Quote:

If they are not qualified it may just be ignorance, but if they know they are misrepresenting the facts they must have a motive to do so.

Exactly!

Quote:

There does not have to be a monetary profit to misrepresent the facts, personal beliefs are more than enough it seems.

Personal beliefs are formed by propaganda and the corporations have an investment. Why depend on beliefs when facts are so readily available?

... people do not buy and consume organics because of their nutritional differences anyway.

Quote:

Then why is it one of the main questions posed to the experts? It appears that there are those who do.

It is only one of the main questions. The other main questions have to do with the health of the environment and the health of our off-spring. Organics actually have more nutritional value than non-organics. Those who are concerend about nutritional value are also concerned about the environment.

Quote:

Yet the firestorm over the study focusing nutrician?

Yes! Because nutrition is NOT the main reason people buy and consume organics, yet organic is more nutritional anyway, as the Stanford study revealed. AND organic, by definition, does not conatain GMO ....

Support of organics goes way beyond ... to the health of our soil, water, air .... as well as our individual health. Individual health is also dependent on the collective health of our soil, water, and air because our environment effects us all. We live in it. We are it. The study and headlines de-emphasized nutritional value without mentioning the pesticide hazards of conventionally grown food and not even pointing out the use of GMOS which is very significant. Organics, by definition, cannot contain GMO's.

Quote:

And GMOs are "bad" without any evidence to support it other than the fear of the new and unknown by the few. What of the GMOs which were the result of irradiation since the 1950s and are well used by the population with no ill effects? Are they bad now?

Since the 1950's? You have no evidence that there haven't been ill-effects especially since the technology has changed. We are not talking about Mendel's work. This is a common misconception and misrepresentation.

Quote:

Sure they can and do, just not the recent GMOs.

Just not the recent GMO's? We are talking about the recent GMO's.

Quote:

Do you know how many of the citrus varieties are the product of having the buds irradiated to get seedless fruit? The concern most express is over the addition of genes not the random shuffling which has been going on for over half a century now.

Yes, I know.

AND ...

The concern is about much, much, much MORE. It is about land-grabbing and food sovereignty and corporate take-over and personal as well as environmental health. It is about equality and justice and women's rights .... and a lot more. And YES, the concern is also the addition of genes and not just random shuffling.

Quote:

That makes no sense, but then again it should not. I can see where random changes to genes would be so much more acceptable to you than planned changes.

Random changes are much more acceptable. It makes absolute sense and should do. Planned changes are much more problematic than naturally occurring changes because genetic mutations occur infrequently in nature and the plants have time to adjust to changes. Comparing natural mutations with those that occur during the GM transformation process is like comparing apples and oranges. Every plant species has encountered natural mutagens, including certain types and levels of ionizing radiation and chemicals, throughout its natural history and has evolved mechanisms for preventing, repairing, and minimising the impacts of mutations caused by such agents. But plants have not evolved mechanisms to repair or compensate for the insertional mutations that occur during genetic modification.

It's difficult to discern your motives and why you support multinationals such as Monsanto. You defend them as if your life depended on it. Why?

Quote:

I defend the truth from untruth and that sometimes takes me into a discussion of multinational companies or governments.

You don't know the truth. That's the problem.

Quote:

Yes, the opposition to companies or governents are not the only groups to misrepresent things.

A discussion of multinationals and government will lead us down a rabbit-hole .... which is where your "defence" of "truth' should inevitably lead us.

Quote:

Not unless the facts lead us there. That is the difference between a factual and theorecital discussion.

I'm trying to have such a discussion with you. I believe you are naive and have been influenced by the considerable propaganda issued from these corporations who rely on current talking points to influence the crowd. "Feeding the world".

Do you genuinely believe that they are "safe" and/or the only option in feeding a growing population?

Quote:

Not the only option, but probably the more probable route.

But, you see, this is what is up for discussion. They have not proven to be safe for the human body and they are wreaking havoc on the environment as well as on human rights.

Quote:

Where has there been evidence of harm to the human body? Claiming there is insufficient evidence can always be made when one emotionally dislikes something.

Why do you use emotions to discredit an argument? Why should one NOT feel some emotion when faced with peril to our environment? Emotion is just one component of intelligence. There is evidence, anyway, of harm. I have already shown this. GMO's have not been researched thoroughly because the corporations, such as Monsanto, have not allowed it claiming patent or intellectual property. They have thwarted research. For instance, they have only studied the impact of gmo and Roundup on animals for up to 90 days and these have shown little health effects. But when studies for 2 years .....

The implications are extremely serious. They demonstrate the toxicity, both of a GMO with the most widely spread transgenic character and of the most widely used herbicide, even when ingested at extremely low levels, (corresponding to those found in surface or tap water). In addition, these results call into question the adequacy of the current regulatory process, used throughout the world by agencies involved in the assessment of health, food and chemicals, and industries seeking commercialisation of products

Quote:

Proposition 37 seems to be an assumed cause, which is par for the course with some of these discussions. How many people are affected by Propostition 37 again? What nations exactly?

EVERY nation! The US is the leader in GMO use and labeling will have consequences down the line which is why Monsanto, Syngenta and DOW have invested millions of dollars to thwart the general public from knowing what they are eating ..... even though the majority of consumers would like to know.

What are GE’s prospects for increasing future crop yields in developing countries?

The record so far suggests that GE is unlikely to play a major role in increasing yields in developing countries—especially those with limited public infrastructure—in the foreseeable future. Overall, GE has not had a major impact on yields in developing countries.

Are GE crops and industrial style-agriculture the only alternatives available to the developing world?

No, but much more political will and investment of resources is needed to develop and promote these other methods as aggressively as GE has been promoted. The recent International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD)—supported by the World Bank, several United Nations (UN) agencies and numerous governments, and several hundred scientists and others—suggested that GE should play a secondary role to other investments deemed more productive. The IAASTD specifically cited farming methods based on agro-ecology (such as organic), as well as infrastructure improvements such as the building of new roads for market access. Another UN study summarized 114 organic and low-input agriculture projects underway for several years across Africa, which showed average yield increases of 116 percent, along with increased income and other benefits. A recent peer-reviewed summary of world-wide organic production found that organic and near-organic methods in developing countries increased yields more than industrial production methods.

What are GE’s prospects for increasing future crop yields in developing countries?

The record so far suggests that GE is unlikely to play a major role in increasing yields in developing countries—especially those with limited public infrastructure—in the foreseeable future. Overall, GE has not had a major impact on yields in developing countries.

The rest of the quote indicates why:

As with developed countries, there are only a few GE crops, with herbicide-tolerant soybeans being most widely grown (in South America), followed by Bt cotton, primarily in India and China. There are small amounts of Bt maize (corn) in South Africa and a few other countries.

Quote:

Are GE crops and industrial style-agriculture the only alternatives available to the developing world?

No, but much more political will and investment of resources is needed to develop and promote these other methods as aggressively as GE has been promoted. The recent International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD)—supported by the World Bank, several United Nations (UN) agencies and numerous governments, and several hundred scientists and others—suggested that GE should play a secondary role to other investments deemed more productive. The IAASTD specifically cited farming methods based on agro-ecology (such as organic), as well as infrastructure improvements such as the building of new roads for market access. Another UN study summarized 114 organic and low-input agriculture projects underway for several years across Africa, which showed average yield increases of 116 percent, along with increased income and other benefits. A recent peer-reviewed summary of world-wide organic production found that organic and near-organic methods in developing countries increased yields more than industrial production methods.

Roads do not improve yield and the emphasis on the types of yield and then ignoring that "critical" definition difference seems odd to me, especially without reference links.

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein

Failure to Yield makes a critical distinction between potential—or intrinsic—yield and operational yield, concepts that are often conflated by the industry and misunderstood by others. Intrinsic yield refers to a crop’s ultimate production potential under the best possible conditions. Operational yield refers to production levels after losses due to pests, drought and other environmental factors.

Critical, yes, just as critical as the difference between "net" and "gross". The "net" is the important one just as the operational yield is the important factor ... except for this report.

Quote:

The study reviewed the intrinsic and operational yield achievements of the three most common genetically altered food and feed crops in the United States: herbicide-tolerant soybeans, herbicide-tolerant corn, and insect-resistant corn (known as Bt corn, after the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis, whose genes enable the corn to resist several kinds of insects).

The target for Bt corn is clearly operational increase, which is the real world increase by limiting pest losses. Yet they say it does not.

Quote:

Meanwhile, the report found that Bt corn likely provides a marginal operational yield advantage of 3 to 4 percent over typical conventional practices. Since Bt corn became commercially available in 1996, its yield advantage averages out to a 0.2 to 0.3 percent yield increase per year. To put that figure in context, overall U.S. corn yields over the last several decades have annually averaged an increase of approximately one percent, which is considerably more than what Bt traits have provided.

Wait, they follow up by saying it does after all, but 'only' by 3 to 4 percent. The increase for the last "several decades" from all other sources has been greater so that is not significant? Most people would consider a 3 to 4 percent increase in their salary a good thing even if bigger increases for other reasons had occurred in the past.

There seems to be some type of underlying bias being presented to me.

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein

The target for Bt corn is clearly operational increase, which is the real world increase by limiting pest losses. Yet they say it does not.

Quote:

Meanwhile, the report found that Bt corn likely provides a marginal operational yield advantage of 3 to 4 percent over typical conventional practices. Since Bt corn became commercially available in 1996, its yield advantage averages out to a 0.2 to 0.3 percent yield increase per year. To put that figure in context, overall U.S. corn yields over the last several decades have annually averaged an increase of approximately one percent, which is considerably more than what Bt traits have provided.

Wait, they follow up by saying it does after all, but 'only' by 3 to 4 percent. The increase for the last "several decades" from all other sources has been greater so that is not significant? Most people would consider a 3 to 4 percent increase in their salary a good thing even if bigger increases for other reasons had occurred in the past.

There seems to be some type of underlying bias being presented to me.

Quote:

You need to put that 3 to 4 percent in context. It's only marginal becuase its yeild advantages are only 0.2 to 0.3 percent per year. This is in fact marginal when overall corn yeilds have annually averaged an increase of one percent. MORE than what the Bt traits have offered and this is not just intrinsic yeilds, but operational for both corn and soybeans. Here it is again:

"Meanwhile, the report found that Bt corn likely provides a marginal operational yield advantage of 3 to 4 percent over typical conventional practices. Since Bt corn became commercially available in 1996, its yield advantage averages out to a 0.2 to 0.3 percent yield increase per year. To put that figure in context, overall U.S. corn yields over the last several decades have annually averaged an increase of approximately one percent, which is considerably more than what Bt traits have provided."

The target for Bt corn is clearly operational increase, which is the real world increase by limiting pest losses. Yet they say it does not.

Quote:

Meanwhile, the report found that Bt corn likely provides a marginal operational yield advantage of 3 to 4 percent over typical conventional practices. Since Bt corn became commercially available in 1996, its yield advantage averages out to a 0.2 to 0.3 percent yield increase per year. To put that figure in context, overall U.S. corn yields over the last several decades have annually averaged an increase of approximately one percent, which is considerably more than what Bt traits have provided.

Wait, they follow up by saying it does after all, but 'only' by 3 to 4 percent. The increase for the last "several decades" from all other sources has been greater so that is not significant? Most people would consider a 3 to 4 percent increase in their salary a good thing even if bigger increases for other reasons had occurred in the past.

There seems to be some type of underlying bias being presented to me.

Quote:

You need to put that 3 to 4 percent in context. It's only marginal becuase its yeild advantages are only 0.2 to 0.3 percent per year. This is in fact marginal when overall corn yeilds have annually averaged an increase of one percent. MORE than what the Bt traits have offered and this is not just intrinsic yeilds, but operational for both corn and soybeans. Here it is again:

"Meanwhile, the report found that Bt corn likely provides a marginal operational yield advantage of 3 to 4 percent over typical conventional practices. Since Bt corn became commercially available in 1996, its yield advantage averages out to a 0.2 to 0.3 percent yield increase per year. To put that figure in context, overall U.S. corn yields over the last several decades have annually averaged an increase of approximately one percent, which is considerably more than what Bt traits have provided."

Those "several decades" are almost a century and cover EVERY type of increase from improved fertilizers to mechanization. Since there is no specific references we are left with only the claims which have laready been shown to contradict themselves from one paragraph to the next.